Sir Charles, that is.  And in fine form, too. He puts his finger right on the problem of modern jurisprudence (OK, it’s a problem that has been with as long as there have been judges) — judges making up law or striking law down because they think that’s what the the law ought to be. So we have a law against partial birth abortions ruled unconstitutional because it has no provision with respect to the health of the mother. Now even if you think that Constitution has a right to privacy somehow embedded, which is the theory on which laws against abortion were ruled unconstitutional, you will never persuade me that it contains a right to better health. But that’s what we’re stuck with because 5 appointees decided it ought to have one.